Blog

A Sample of Cases Demonstrating CLA’s Commitment to Consumers and Expertise under the Fair Credit Reporting Act

Virginia has become a powerhouse jurisdiction for consumer credit reporting law. Over the past few decades, Virginia consumer advocates – notably attorneys from Consumer Litigation Associates, P.C., frequently in partnership with our sister firm, Kelly Guzzo, P.C., –have  strategically litigated cases that strengthened the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) in both Virginia and the federal Fourth Circuit (which covers Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, and West Virginia).

In this post, we’re highlighting three FCRA cases that our expert credit reporting attorneys successfully fought in Virginia’s federal courts and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals:  Johnson v. MBNA Am. Bank, NA, 357 F.3d 426 (4th Cir. 2004), Saunders v. Branch Banking And Tr. Co. Of VA, 526 F.3d 142 (4th Cir. 2008), and Wood v. Credit One Bank, 277 F. Supp. 3d 821 (E.D. Va. 2017).  While all of these cases have shaped credit reporting law in Virginia, the Johnson and Saunders cases, which we were decided by the federal Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, became the law in Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, and West Virginia federal courts. These decisions, which were achieved by the expert credit reporting attorneys at Consumer Litigation Associates, P.C., are now cited across the country and continue to benefit everyday consumers. In plain language, this post will explain each case’s story, its core significance, and what it means for consumers today.

Johnson v. MBNA (4th Cir. 2004) – Furnishers Must Reasonably Investigate Disputes

Summary: Johnson v. MBNA America Bank put teeth into the FCRA’s dispute process requirements for “furnishers” (companies who furnish information to credit bureaus) pursuant to 15 U.S.C § 1681s-2(b). The Plaintiff discovered a credit card debt reporting on her credit that was not truly her responsibility (it was connected to her then-husband’s account). She disputed the error with Equifax, Experian, and Trans Union. MBNA, as the “furnisher” of the information, received notice of the dispute but responded by simply “verifying” the debt as the Plaintiff’s without any meaningful investigation. Johnson then sued MBNA under the FCRA for failing to properly investigate her dispute. A Virginia jury agreed that MBNA did not do its job and awarded her $90,300 in actual damages. MBNA appealed, arguing that the law only required a cursory records check. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals firmly rejected MBNA’s assertion.

Legal Holding: The Fourth Circuit’s 2004 opinion made clear that furnishers are required to  conduct a “reasonable investigation” of consumer credit disputes. The court looked at the statute’s language – which says furnishers shall “conduct an investigation” of disputed information – and reasoned that an “investigation” means more than a superficial glance. In Judge Wilkins’s words, Congress wouldn’t give consumers the right to dispute credit report errors only to allow creditors to perform “superficial, unreasonably cursory” inquiries. Thus, Johnson v. MBNA held that when a credit bureau alerts a furnisher about a consumer’s dispute, the furnisher must do a reasonable, thorough inquiry into its records to determine if the information is accurate. It’s not enough for the bank to simply say “Yes, our records still show the debt.” The furnisher is required to actually conduct a reasonable investigation of their records to determine whether the disputed information can be verified.

Impact for Consumers: Johnson’s case is a cornerstone for anyone trying to fix errors on a credit report. Thanks to this ruling, if you dispute an item on your report to a consumer reporting agency (such as Equifax, Experian, or Trans Union) the company that furnished that information has a legal duty to reasonably investigate your dispute. If they don’t – if they merely rubber-stamp the inaccurate info as “verified” without investigating – they can be held liable under § 1681s-2(b) of the FCRA. This precedent empowers consumers who are facing inaccurate information on their credit reports. In practice, Johnson v. MBNA has been cited nationwide to hold banks, credit card companies, and other furnishers accountable when they handle disputes sloppily. In short, dispute an inaccuracy on your credit report, Johnson v. MBNA is one of the reasons why the furnisher of that information must take your dispute seriously. This case marked a big win for consumers in the federal Fourth Circuit (Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina, and South Carolina) and the credit report lawyers who advocate for them.

Saunders v. BB&T (4th Cir. 2008) – Reporting Disputed Debts Fairly (No “Technical Accuracy” Loopholes)

Summary: Saunders v. Branch Banking & Trust Co. (BB&T) started with a mix-up over a car loan. The Plaintiff traded in a car and, due to a bank error, BB&T didn’t properly record his new loan. The Plaintiff attempted several times to make payments on the new loan, but each time he contacted BB&T, they insisted that there was no loan, and he did not owe them anything. A bank lending officer eventually admitted BB&T’s mistake—which the bank only realized due to the Plaintiff’s persistence—but the loan officer refused to waive the late fees and penalties that had accrued as a result of the bank’s mistake. BB&T then repossessed the Plaintiff’s car and reported the loan as a major derogatory item on his credit. Plaintiff’s credit score plummeted from 754 to 599.

The Plaintiff formally disputed the loan entry with the credit bureaus, because the default was caused entirely by BB&T’s error. BB&T answered the credit bureaus’ inquiry by updating the report to an even worse “charge-off” status – and crucially, BB&T failed to note that Saunders disputed the debt. In other words, BB&T reported the debt as if it were unquestionably valid, omitting the fact that the Plaintiff had a bona fide dispute about its legitimacy. The Plaintiff sued under the FCRA, and a jury in the Eastern District of Virginia (Richmond Division) found BB&T willfully violated the law, awarding $80,000 in punitive damages on top of statutory damages.

Legal Holding: The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s verdict and in doing so upheld an important rule: simply reporting technically accurate information is not enough if the information is misleading or incomplete. Furnishers must not create a “materially misleading” impression on a credit report, and failing to indicate a known dispute can render a report inaccurate or incomplete under the FCRA. BB&T argued that because the debt existed, reporting it as charged-off was “technically accurate.” The Fourth Circuit agreed with the district court’s assessment that a report can be “inaccurate” if it omits crucial context – here, the fact that the consumer disputes the debt. The ruling means that credit reporting isn’t just about dry technicalities. It requires fairness and completeness. By failing to mark Saunders’s account as “disputed,” BB&T made his credit report materially misleading and thus violated its FCRA duty to report accurate and complete information. The Fourth Circuit also upheld the punitive damages award as constitutional, finding BB&T’s conduct willful and concluding that “BB & T’s intentional misconduct and longstanding refusal to correct its errors are more reprehensible than negligence or a mistake quickly corrected.”

Impact for Consumers: Saunders v. BB&T is great news for consumers dealing with stubborn credit report errors or unfair credit entries. It means that furnishers (like banks, lenders, or debt collectors) can’t avoid liability by claiming that incomplete or misleading reporting was “technically accurate”. If you have formally disputed an inaccurate account through a consumer reporting agency, the company reporting that information must update the credit report to reflect that it’s disputed, or otherwise ensure the report isn’t misleading. For example, if you dispute an account as fraud or identity theft, or you contest the amount owed, the furnisher can’t simply leave the credit item looking like an undisputed, valid debt because doing so could be “incomplete or inaccurate” under FCRA. This case is frequently cited in FCRA lawsuits nationwide for the principle that omissions matter and credit reporting must tell the whole truth. Saunders also empowered consumers by affirming that the 1:80 ratio of statutory to punitive damages was constitutional and appropriate. In sum, Saunders helps to ensure that consumers who dispute credit report items are protected from the “technical accuracy” loophole.

Wood v. Credit One Bank (E.D. Va. 2017) – Standing Up for Identity Theft Victims & Accurately Reporting Investigations

Summary: Wood v. Credit One Bank is a more recent federal Virginia case (brought in Richmond). The Plaintiff was a victim of identity theft: someone opened a Credit One credit card in his name without permission. When the Plaintiff discovered this fraudulent account after receiving a surprise bill for a credit card he never signed up for, he immediately alerted Credit One that it wasn’t his debt. He even filed a police report regarding the identity theft. Despite this clear evidence of fraud, Credit One failed to fix the problem. Over the next couple of years, the Plaintiff repeatedly disputed the account with the credit bureaus, and each time Credit One responded that the account was “verified” as belonging to the Plaintiff, marking the disputes as resolved in its system. In reality, Credit One’s “investigation” consisted of matching basic identifiers (name, SSN, date of birth) and noting that, at one point, they had already decided Wood was responsible. In other words, Credit One never truly reconsidered the fraud claim, even after the Plaintiff’s family member provided an affidavit confessing that they opened the account in his name.

Notably, Credit One had an internal policy of almost always using a dispute code “XH” (meaning “account previously in dispute – now resolved”) when responding to disputes, regardless of whether the consumer still disagreed, and they never used the code “XC” (“completed investigation – consumer disagrees”). Essentially, the bank was sweeping identity theft disputes under the rug by marking them resolved when they weren’t. Wood sued Credit One in the Eastern District of Virginia for violating FCRA’s furnisher duties, and in 2017 the court granted summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff.

Legal Holding: The court’s decision in Wood v. Credit One was a strong affirmation that furnishers must genuinely investigate fraud and identity theft disputes. The Eastern District of Virginia held that Credit One failed to conduct a reasonable investigation into the Plaintiff’s multiple disputes, and it failed to accurately report the results of those investigations. In fact, Credit One’s reports were outright false – they continued to report that the Plaintiff opened and owed money on the account, even after ample evidence indicated it was fraudulent. By granting summary judgment for the consumer (which means the judge decided the case in the Plaintiff’s favor without even needing a jury trial), the court signaled that Credit One’s perfunctory dispute process was so deficient that no reasonable jury could side with the bank. If a bank is told that an account is the product of identity theft, it can’t simply verify the account using the same flawed information as before or blindly trust its initial records. The investigation must dig deeper – otherwise, it’s not “reasonable” under the FCRA. Credit One’s practice of automatically marking disputes as “resolved” without changing anything (despite new evidence) was found to violate the FCRA’s requirement of a good-faith, thorough response to disputes.

Impact for Consumers: Wood v. Credit One is a reassuring precedent for anyone who has suffered identity theft or mixed credit files. It demonstrates that Virginia credit reporting attorneys (like those at CLA who litigated Wood’s case) can force furnishers to clean up fraudulent accounts and errors. As a consumer, if you dispute an inaccurate account on your report  (as the result of identity theft, for example), the furnisher must do more than just check that your name and Social Security number match their records. Further, the furnisher must, at the bare minimum, report the account as disputed. Wood’s case shows that courts will hold companies accountable if they ignore clear red flags of fraud. For consumers, it means you have a fighting chance to get a fraudulent account removed from your credit report. And if a creditor drags its feet or continues reporting the false information, Wood v. Credit One gives your credit report lawyer even more ammunition to demand correction and damages. This decision (like Johnson and Saunders before it) adds to Virginia’s reputation as a consumer-friendly forum.

A Nationwide Impact Benefiting Consumers

These three cases – Johnson, Saunders, and Wood, provide examples of how a focused group of Virginia consumer attorneys have turned the Commonwealth into a national leader in consumer credit litigation. Each decision addressed real-world problems (credit billing mistakes, inadequate investigations of disputes, and unfair reporting following dispute “investigations”). Together, they are examples of how expert credit reporting attorneys can weave a stronger safety net for consumers’ financial reputations. Importantly, the impact of these cases extends far beyond Virginia or the Fourth Circuit:

• National Precedent: Courts across the country routinely cite these Virginia cases when interpreting the FCRA, especially Johnson’s “reasonable investigation” standard and Saunders’s principle that omitting a dispute can make a report inaccurate. In short, Virginia’s FCRA precedents have helped shape national jurisprudence, ensuring consumers everywhere benefit from the robust protections recognized here.
• Protection for Consumers: Thanks in part to these cases, consumers today have stronger tools to dispute and correct credit report errors, fix mixed files, and handle the fallout of identity theft. If a credit bureau or furnisher fails to investigate your dispute, Johnson is on your side. If a bank leaves critical context (like a fraud claim or a dispute) off your credit report, Saunders backs you up. If identity theft strikes, Wood shows that the law demands a thorough response. These cases collectively send a clear message: accuracy, fairness, and completeness in credit reporting are not aspirational – they are legally required, and consumers can enforce them with our help.
• Virginia Credit Reporting Attorneys Leading the Way: It bears emphasizing that Consumer Litigation Associates was instrumental in each of these victories. Without fanfare or self-promotion, these Virginia consumer advocates developed a long-game strategy to take on pioneer cases under the FCRA and establish favorable law. Virginia’s body of FCRA case law means you and your attorney have strong precedent to support your position. Indeed, “Virginia credit reporting attorneys” have a reputation for expertise in this field precisely because of cases like those discussed here.

In conclusion, the strategic litigation efforts in Virginia have paid off in making the FCRA more than just words on paper. These decisions are now cited from coast to coast, continuing to support consumers in cases regarding inaccurate credit reports, uncorrected disputes, identity theft damage, and more. They stand as a testament to how smart, dedicated advocacy can change the law to the benefit of all consumers. If you find yourself dealing with an error on your credit,  know that these Virginia-born precedents have your back, and consider reaching out to an experienced credit report lawyer at Consumer Litigation Associates who can leverage these powerful tools to protect your rights.

Call us at (757) 930-3660 or click HERE to contact us for a free case review

• Johnson v. MBNA America Bank, N.A., 357 F.3d 426 (4th Cir. 2004).
• Saunders v. Branch Banking & Trust Co. of Va., 526 F.3d 142 (4th Cir. 2008).
• Wood v. Credit One Bank, 277 F. Supp. 3d 821 (E.D. Va. 2017).
• 15 U.S.C. § 1681c(a) (FCRA seven-year obsolescence rule for non-conviction records).
• 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b) (FCRA furnisher duties upon notice of dispute from a credit bureau).

Legal Disclaimer: This blog post is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every case is different, and past results do not guarantee future outcomes. If you have questions about your specific situation, contact Consumer Litigation Associates for more information or assistance (757) 930-3660.